About this Show

Senate Debate

Pennsylvania News/Business. (2012) Candidates Sen. Bob Casey (D) and Republican Tom Smith debate in Pennsylvania.

program was likely cut short due to a recording issue

NETWORK

DURATION
00:18:55

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 91 (627 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

America 6, Mr. Casey 5, Jim 3, Mr. Smith 3, Iran 3, Israel 3, Casey 2, Tom Smith 2, Texas 2, Biden 1, Graham 1, Dr. Martin Luther 1, Sandy 1, Lovell 1, United States 1, Soviet Union 1, U.n. 1, Orion 1, The Cia 1, Hezbollah 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Senate Debate    Pennsylvania  News/Business.  (2012) Candidates Sen. Bob  
   Casey (D) and Republican Tom Smith debate in Pennsylvania.  

    October 28, 2012
    3:46 - 4:04pm EDT  

3:46pm
another is a sports coach. the disparity is not good. it's not a good thing. i will do all i can as your united states senator to encourage and consider legislation that is equal work, equal pay. >> mr. casey. >> monica, we have had a few occasions to cast votes that directly impacted this issue or affects women in the workplace. the fair pay act has not been passed yet. we need to get more help from the other side of the aisle to do that. we should take steps to remedy that basic injustice, as you noted, which has been an injustice that has gone unsolved for too long. we need to get people working together to pass that act. secondly, they believe ledbetter
3:47pm
act -- lily ledbetter act should be more of a consensus. we had to pass that over the objections of republicans in the senate, but we got it passed in 2009. there are a lot of ways to begin to remedy those basic injustices. at the same time, we should take steps to grow the economy. we should continue to create jobs for the american people, men and women. of thenent's support orion budget and some other radical proposals, instead of moving us forward on jobs, it would take us down a sharp right turn back into the ditch. i think we can prepare it -- repair those injustices. >> i do not want to get bogged down in numbers, but when you talk about uranium enrichment,
3:48pm
things can provoke anxiety in terms of what iran either is or is not doing. you need to enrich uranium between 3%-5% for the purposes of nuclear power. they have a knowledge -- acknowledged to the u.n. uranium enrichment upwards of 20% and they now claim it is for medical research. the standard for web and eyes that uranium is enriched up to 85% -- for enriched uranium is up to 85%. there are some who say that you can make a more crude bomb with enriched uranium at 20%. the image that comes to me as a bunch of uranium in a truck parked somewhere at a busy intersection in tel aviv or jerusalem.
3:49pm
what does it mean that iran already has uranium enriched to a level of 20% that could be used for an inefficient bomb? what does this say about the sufficiency of the sanctions regime the u.s. has in place against them? is it enough even as we speak? that will begin with mr. casey. >> this is a national security question. it is also a question about the alliance and unbreakable bond we have with israel that we have to make sure we continue to support. you did a very good job walking through detectable details -- the technical details. what you outlined walking through that is the threat that the nuclear program poses. even absent a nuclear threat, the have shown themselves to be
3:50pm
-- it's hard to believe them. the regime has taken action to be exporters of terrorism. they support hezbollah, hamas, every bad guy of the middle east. they are the banker and backers of all the bad guys. with nuclear weapons, they become an even greater threat which would affect our economy and their safety. believe it or not, in washington, sometimes there are moments of clarity. we had a resolution voted on in the senate that got 90-1 to support a resolution from graham and lieberman saying containment is not enough. we need to make sure they do not reach nuclear capability. >> how do you make sure they do not? >> first, by making sure we
3:51pm
keep imposing sanctions and amplify them if we can. work as hard as we can on another track to provide a coalition with the international community to keep the pressure on. we should never take off the table the ultimate option, which would be military action. >> vice president biden said in his debate that you have to look at the in richmond lovell's -- enrichment levels. what they do not have is a weapon. my thought when he said that is they have a truck. if that is all they need, what is your response to that kind of sinking in? >> to have outlined the problem. even if they do not have every step of technical capability, they have the potential to export that material around the
3:52pm
world. we used only be concerned about the threat posed by the soviet union. now we are concerned about non- state doctors, small groups, who can detonate a weapon as well as organizations around the world. >> the you have a red line for iran over which they must not go? >> for me, it is contained in the resolution, nuclear weapons capability. we pushed very hard for that. when we introduced bipartisan legislation in may, i was not sure we get the kind of support we did. the senate spoke with one voice with 90 votes. >> mr. smith coming have at least two minutes. [laughter] >> i do not think i will need two minutes to explain my stance on iran. we must make sure that they do not get nuclear weapons.
3:53pm
where we are out on that, are we really sure? certain scientists say this, the cia, etc. i will take them at their word that they do not have them yet. we have to keep using all the tools we can to assure that they do not. that's not acceptable. as far as israel, on that issue, we must never had any daylight between the united states of america and israel. could the sanctions be have put on sooner? possibly. could have been more harsh? possibly. i'm in no position to second- guess that. but put them on as hard as we can and pray that cooler heads prevail. but i still have some time? >> you do. >> there are a few things that
3:54pm
senator casey said way back, but you keep bringing up that my plan would and medicare, and social security -- end medicare and social security, they would not. if you read the plan, you would know that. you say that i endorse the ryan planet, i said that they were plans. at least they had the four were thinking and the courage to bring out various plans, which few people in your party, nor have you, have come out talking about how to secure them. let's take these plans and have a discussion. we cannot continue to bury our heads in the sand. there are many things you said here. i never said that on the air.
3:55pm
i'm speaking to my plan, the written plan, so please take a look at that plan. i do not want to end social security. it emphatically states in there that i will do nothing. it will be protected. that's between the government banned them. -- and them. there are some plans in there that will save it for the long haul. i will end it there. have been gracious with time. >> do you need a rebuttal? 15 seconds. >> the most radical proposal in the senate that a grand total of 16 votes and it was the rand paul budget. tom smith said it was a good plan. when it comes to medicare, this
3:56pm
is a basic debate about ending the medicare benefits. my records indicate that voted to not just preserve it does strength and it. >> monica, the last question. >> because of the economic downturn, the education in our country have had their budgets dropped. it makes it challenging, most would say come to believe that our students in the future will be competing on a level playing field on around the world because of bigger class sizes, fewer books, less time with quality teachers. how would you improve education? mr. smith, you would suggest eliminating the department of indication altogether. is that the right plan for this moment? -- the department of education altogether. >> the best way to educate our students is at the state level. that is between the local school board, teachers, and parents. i said i would take a look at
3:57pm
the department of education, and it's possible, but they do some good things. we do not want to throw it away, but we need -- any federal organization, especially as big as the department of education, there's a lot of waste in there. give that money to the states. they can do it themselves. that's a state issue. it would be more economical doing it that way. we need to eliminate a lot of mandates from the department of education. i don't think a lot of career politicians, which i am not, but they do not grasp how these mandates that have been mandated down to the state, including education, they have to be paid for. it falls to the state usually. the federal government will just
3:58pm
mandated. let's eliminate that and use our money wisely to focus it on a laser like the local schools, teachers, and the school boards. that's how you improve education. >> mr. casey. but this is a very important question that deals with our long-term economic growth. we invest in education to innovate over time. we need to be on the edge. it has eroded over the last generation so we need to make smart choices. proposing or supporting to eliminate the department of education does not make a lot of sense. in addition to stopping proposals like that from coming into effect, we need to invest in children at the dawn of their lives. early childhood education is critical. they know if we invest now that
3:59pm
they will grow and develop to be a highly skilled worker. the federal government, and there is some agreement between the two of us, but they can be a partner in helping with elementary and basic education but it can and should dictate without having a one-size-fits- all policy. most of the world, as it relates to local schools, are done at the school district level. they want to keep local control of those schools. i think we can make some changes to what used to be known as no child left behind. so far, a lot of the changes have been bipartisan and we should continue that. >> we have not talked about rise and i think we should. in the case of fisher beat texas their tickets at the issue of whether -- fischer v. texas, they look at the issue about federal dollars going to colleges. if the supreme court should
4:00pm
decide that race should no longer be a part of a decision making process as to whether an individual gets admitted to a college or university, what wouldis it appropriate that raco longer be part of that formula? you both have more -- no more than 40 seconds to respond. mr. casey, you go first. >> if the supreme court were to make that decision, it would be a radical departure from where we have been and i think it would be too much. we still have a ways to go to make sure that the kind of discrimination that was in place for many generations is rectified, that that injustice is dealt with. we can have a debate -- big debate about how to do that, but i do not think we should take a radical departure from where we have been.
4:01pm
i would hope that our some peering court would not make a decision based on an ideology. >> mr. smith? >> jim, when you asked that question, i was thinking that i believed in what the great dr. martin luther king said in a great speech of his, that we should be judged not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character. i believe that we should try to put an end to discrimination and bigotry wherever we find it, but it cannot be done in this situation. i do not think that the federal government should be discriminating against anybody. basically, that is what this does. we need to work to put an end to all of that without legislation, so to speak. >> gentlemen, thank you so much. that concludes the question and
4:02pm
answer portion of the debate tonight. mr. casey won the coin toss for closing statement orders. he has elected to defer. he will take the ball to be in the second half. so, mr. smith, your closing statement goes first. >> jim, i would like to thank you, monica, vernon, and the league of women voters for having us here today. my wife and i have been very blessed. we have six daughters and a son. after our three biological daughters were pretty well grown, we adopted that group together, which has given sandy and i nine grandchildren so far. the youngest of which is less than one month old. when that little fellow come into the world, he was $51,000 in debt because of our national debt.
4:03pm
while everyone in this generation fights over who among us deserves credit for building water and how much money we can spend ourselves right now, who is going to stand up for our children and their children? i am just an old farm boy who wound up in business. but i grew up in an america where a farm boy who knew how to work could follow his dreams and achieve success. but as i watch the basketball teams and youth groups and scouts, laughing and playing in the gym behind my house, i worry about their america. the america which you and i will soon turn over to them. i will never give up on this country.
4:04pm
i love america because of the god-given freedom that america represents. i asked you to join me in that belief and in this cause. i appreciate it and i thank you so much. >> mr. casey? >> jim, thank you. i would like to thank channel 6, and tom smith as well, for being here. over the last six years i have been an independent voice for the people of our state and i have got results for them. in this campaign, seven newspapers have made editorial determinations as to whom they would in doors and all seven endorsed my candidacy. one of the reasons that i have been indorse from pittsburgh to philadelphia and everywhere in between